Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Except the chain of cause and effect you're describing breaks down at the quantum level. It's not a simple as saying that something had to knock down the first domino.

Partially true.

It breaks down at the quantum level because our knowledge of quantum physics is currently exhausted. So essentially, at the quantum level, we've replaced 'X' caused 'Y' with "quantum physics tells us nothing caused 'Y'". The assumption here is that quantum physics at its present state is the irreducible fundamental in nature. It's just way too young of a science to make any such claim. You'd think we'd have learned our lesson about throwing around absolutes, especially considering the very same branch of science is just getting over the Newtonian "Clockwork" paradigm that was thought to be the absolute in nature.

The problem is the hubris of science in thinking that it can prove this. To think otherwise, as I outlined in a few of my previous posts (specifically with regards to Gödel), is a misunderstaning of the notion of proof and its capabilities (this is also what is completely eluding our friend aka). Very simply put, proof is entirely referential. I.e. 'A' because 'B', 'B' because 'C', 'C' because 'D', etc. We are hard wired to think in these terms, and this is manifested by the prize jewel of our abilities to "prove": formal systems. The only absolute proof is that proof itself relies entirely on inference.

If there is an absolute truth to be had, it is futile to think our abilities to "prove" can in any attempt ultimately apprehend it. This is not mysticism, it is scientific fact.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

Re: How can anyone still believe in God

Originally Posted by Sirdowski

Absolutely.

The problem is the hubris of science in thinking that it can prove this. To think otherwise, as I outlined in a few of my previous posts (specifically with regards to Gödel), is a misunderstaning of the notion of proof and its capabilities (this is also what is completely eluding our friend aka). Very simply put, proof is entirely referential. I.e. 'A' because 'B', 'B' because 'C', 'C' because 'D', etc. We are hard wired to think in these terms, and this is manifested by the prize jewel of our abilities to "prove": formal systems. The only absolute proof is that proof itself relies entirely on inference.

If there is an absolute truth to be had, it is futile to think our abilities to "prove" can in any attempt ultimately apprehend it. This is not mysticism, it is scientific fact.

Nice! I thought for a minute my head would explode, but then again, one must clear the mind to get rid of the surrounding noise. I was able to understand you...I believe.
I have recently grabbed a copy of Kybalion, by Three Initiates.
And your post makes sense to me.

Nice! I thought for a minute my head would explode, but then again, one must clear the mind to get rid of the surrounding noise. I was able to understand you...I believe.
I have recently grabbed a copy of Kybalion, by Three Initiates.
And your post makes sense to me.

There's a very interesting documentary floating around online called "Dangerous Knowledge", I'd highly recommend checking it out. It elaborates much more on the ideas I was referring to.